Coronavirus
Technology Solutions
Masks will
Continue to be
Used for Pollen
Controversy on
Ionizers
Continues
History of
Ionizer Law
Suits and
Bankruptcies
________________________________________________________________________
Masks will
Continue to be
Used for Pollen
The masks people
have been
wearing to help
prevent the
spread of
COVID-19 are
also good at
filtering out
pollen and other
allergens
floating in the
air. For people
with allergic
rhinitis or
allergic asthma,
who develop
symptoms after
breathing in
allergens, masks
can be really
helpful.
Even before
COVID-19 caused
everyone to
start wearing
masks, some
patients with
seasonal
allergies used
masks on days
with extremely
high pollen
counts or when
doing yardwork.
Pollen grains
can be as small
as about 10
micrometers, but
surgical masks
can catch
particles as
small as 3
micrometers.
Other medical
masks can be
even more
effective. Even
the cloth masks
most people are
wearing in
outdoor settings
can make a
difference,
especially those
with multiple
layers of
fabric.
An allergy is
essentially the
immune system
overreacting to
something that
is not a threat.
When pollen
comes into
contact with the
mucus membrane
inside the nose,
for example, the
immune response
creates
inflammation,
which in turn
causes
congestion,
sneezing, and
excess mucus. If
you can prevent
an allergen like
pollen from
getting inside
your nose, you
won’t have that
response.
Of course, face
masks don’t
protect your
eyes. If you
have allergic
conjunctivitis—eye
allergies—you
probably are
going to benefit
less from
wearing a mask
over your nose
and mouth.
With so many
people wearing
masks outdoors
this year,
patients have
reported fewer
seasonal allergy
issues. However,
an increase in
indoor allergies
has been seen as
people added
dogs or cats to
their household
and spent more
time at home.
Our houses are
the one place
most people
aren’t wearing a
mask, and more
patients are
seeking
treatment for
allergies to
animals, dust,
and mold.
Even for
seasonal
allergies, masks
aren’t a great
long-term
solution. Many
people dealing
with allergies
also have skin
conditions like
eczema or acne
that can be made
worse by wearing
a mask for a
prolonged time.
The most
effective way to
treat an allergy
is with allergy
shots, or immunotherapy.
Over several
years of
treatment, this
can actually
cure an allergy
instead of just
treating the
symptoms.
Boeing tested two kinds of
ionization
technologies —
like those
widely adopted
in schools
hoping to combat
Covid-19 — to
determine how
well each killed
germs on
surfaces and
decided that
neither was
effective enough
to install on
its commercial
planes.
Boeing noted in its
conclusion that
“air ionization
has not shown
significant
disinfection
effectiveness.”
Companies that make the air
purifiers say
they emit
charged ions, or
“activated
oxygen,” that
are said to
inactivate
bacteria and
viruses in the
air. Boeing did
not test the
technology’s
effectiveness in
the air, only on
surfaces. It
also used a
“surrogate” for
the virus that
causes Covid-19.
The Boeing
study has been cited in a federal lawsuit filed by a
Maryland
consumer against
Global Plasma
Solutions, maker
of the
“needlepoint
bipolar
ionization”
technology that
a Boeing
spokesperson
said its
engineers
tested.
The proposed class-action
lawsuit says GPS
makes
“deceptive,
misleading, and
false” claims
about its
products based
on
company-funded
studies that are
“not applicable
to real world
conditions.”
A GPS spokesperson said the
lawsuit is
“baseless and
misleading” and
that the company
will
aggressively
defend against
it. He added
that Boeing
“researchers
deemed the study
‘inconclusive.’”
“Plaintiff’s Complaint
throws the
proverbial
kitchen sink at
GPS in the hopes
that something
might stick,”
the air purifier
company says
in court
documents filed
May 24 as part
of its motion to
dismiss the
proposed class
action. “But it
is devoid of any
concrete,
specific
allegations
plausibly
alleging that
GPS made even a
single false or
deceptive
statement about
its products.”
The plaintiff’s case cites a KHN
investigation that found that more than 2,000 U.S. schools had
bought
air-purifying
technology,
including
ionizers. Many
schools used
federal funds to
purchase the
products. In
April, a
covid-19
commission task
force from
The Lancet,
a leading
medical journal,
composed of top
international
health,
education and
air-quality
experts, called
various
air-cleaning
technologies —
ionization,
plasma and dry
hydrogen
peroxide —
“often
unproven.”
Boeing said in its report that with ionization there is “very little
external peer
reviewed
research in
comparison to
other
traditional
disinfection
technologies”
such as
chemical, UV and
thermal
disinfection
and HEPA
filters, all of
which it relies
on to sanitize
its planes.
The controversy is getting
the attention of
school officials
from coast to
coast. They
include one
California
superintendent
who cited the
lawsuit and
switched off
that district’s
more than 400
GPS devices.
For worried parents and
academic
air-quality
experts who
regard
industry-backed
studies with
skepticism, the
Boeing report
heightens their
concerns.
“This [study] is totally
damning,” said
Delphine Farmer,
a Colorado State
University
associate
professor who
specializes in
atmospheric and
indoor chemistry
who reviewed the
Boeing report.
“It should just
raise flags for
absolutely
everyone.”
GPS pointed to another
study, one
conducted in the
weeks before
Boeing began its
study in
September, by a
third-party lab.
It completed a study of two devices — powered by GPS technology — that another
aviation company
now markets to
clean the air
and surfaces in
planes.
That study looked at the
effect of the
ionizers on the
virus that
causes Covid-19
when used on
aluminum, a type
of plastic
called Kydex and
leather. The
test report
shows it was
conducted in a
sealed,
20-by-8-foot
chamber, with
airflow speeds
of 2,133 feet
per minute — or
about 24 mph. At
the end of 30
minutes, “the
overall average
decrease in
active virus”
was more than 99
percent.
“Given the specific
environment this
was tested in,
the quality of
the materials,
and the method
in which the
virus was
dispersed, it is
safe to say that
the bipolar
ionization
system used in
this experiment
has the ability
to deactivate
SARS-CoV-2 with
the given ion
counts,” the
Aug. 7 report
from the
third-party lab
says.
The following month,
Boeing began its
own testing of
GPS devices and
another kind of
ionization
technology.
The Boeing study cites a
GPS white paper that says its device killed 99.68 percent of E.
coli bacteria in
one test in 15
minutes. GPS
records show the
test was done on
bacteria
suspended in the
air. The Boeing
engineers used
the company’s
technology to
try to kill E.
coli on surfaces
in a lab but
found “no
observable
reduction in
viability” after
an hour.
The Boeing study notes it
“was unable to
replicate
supplier results
in terms of
antimicrobial
effectiveness.”
GPS cautioned that the
Boeing tests
examined
disinfection of
surfaces, not
the air: “While
GPS products do
have the ability
to help reduce
pathogens in air
and on surfaces,
GPS products are
not chemical
surface
disinfectants.”
Yet surface tests comprise
half of the test
results the
company lists on
its “pathogen
reduction”
webpage, a GPS
spokesperson
confirmed.
Boeing researchers found
another lab
result they
could not
replicate: While
the GPS white
paper reported a
96.24 percent
reduction in
Staphylococcus
aureus in 30
minutes, Boeing
engineers found
“no reductions”
in the bacteria
in an hourlong
test.
Boeing found minimal or no
reduction on
surfaces in four
other pathogens
it tested with
GPS ionizers for
an hour in a
Huntsville,
Alabama, lab.
Notably, Boeing’s tests in
Huntsville
detected no
hazardous ozone
gas from the GPS
unit, the report
says. The
“corona
discharge”
ionization
technology from
another vendor
that Boeing also
studied did emit
ozone at levels
that “exceeded
regulatory
standards.”
A University of Arizona lab
test described
in the Boeing
study found that
the GPS device
showed a 66.7%
inactivation of
a common cold
coronavirus on a
surface after an
hour of exposure
at up to 62,000
negative ions
per cubic
centimeter. That
ion level is far
higher than the
amount of ions
company leaders
have said the
devices tend to
deliver to a
typical room.
Those levels
have ranged
from 2,000 to 10,000 and even
up to 30,000
ions per cubic
centimeter when
an HVAC system
is running,
according to
records provided
to KHN and
statements made
by company representatives.
In a presentation during a Berkeley Unified School District meeting
in California, a
physicist who
appeared with
executives said
a level of more
than 60,000 ions
per cubic
centimeter “has
been shown to be
not healthy.”
GPS noted that Boeing
deemed the 66.7
percent
effectiveness
rate in killing
the common cold
virus
"statistically
significant." A
GPS spokesperson
said the result
validates
needlepoint
bipolar
ionization’s
“effectiveness
against certain
pathogens.” In
its report,
Boeing called
the test results
“inconclusive”
due to “lack of
experimental
confirmation.”
A GPS spokesperson also
highlighted a
passage in the
Boeing report’s
conclusion that
said: “There
remains
significant
interest in air
ionization due
to lack of
byproduct
production,
minimal risk to
human health,
minimum risk to
airplane
materials and
systems, and the
potential for
persistent
disinfection of
air and surfaces
under specific
flow
conditions.”
The Boeing study concluded
in January. In
April, GPS published the
results of additional tests it funded at a third-party lab
showing its
technology “is
highly effective
in neutralizing
the SARS-CoV-2
pathogen.”
Boeing engineers said their
study highlights
the need for
those in the
ionization
business to
standardize the
evaluation of
the technology
“to allow
comparison to
other proven
methods of
disinfection.”
On May 7, law firms
representing a
man who spent
over $750 on a
GPS air cleaner
in Texas filed
the “fraudulent
concealment” lawsuit
against GPS in
U.S. District
Court in
Delaware.
The lawsuit claims that the
defendant’s
“misrepresentations
and false
statements were
woven into an
extensive and
long-term
advertising
campaign ...
accelerating
during the
COVID-19
pandemic.”
“People are being
victimized by
these companies
for profit,”
said Mickey
Mills, a Houston
attorney for the
plaintiff.
“People are
scared because
of covid, and
they capitalize
on it.”
In filing a motion to
dismiss the
case, GPS told
the court the
lawsuit was an
“attempt to
distort the
facts and assert
baseless claims,
doing grave
damage to GPS’s
business in the
process.”
The GPS court document also
says the
disclaimers on
its website
“make it
unreasonable for
any consumers to
believe that the
efficacy
demonstrated in
GPS studies will
necessarily be
the same for
their particular
application.”
It asserts that most of the
GPS statements
identified in
the plaintiff’s
lawsuit — such
as “safe to use”
and “cleaner
air” — amount to
“non-actionable
puffery” as they
are “vague
generalities and
statements of
opinion.”
The lawsuit spurred a
Newark,
California,
school district
to turn off its
GPS devices,
according to
a May 18
memo from
Superintendent
Mark Triplett to
district
families. The
district spent
nearly $360,000
on the devices,
an April board
presentation shows.
The roughly 5,500-student
district bought
GPS units for
every school
HVAC system,
Triplett said in
a March
school board
meeting in which
he noted the
technology
“arguably is
much better than
any filter.” By
May, he said in
the memo the
district had
become aware of
the lawsuit
“alleging the
misrepresentation”
of the devices
and would
continue to
monitor the
situation.
A company spokesperson
noted GPS
appreciates
Newark’s
concerns and has
reached out to
share additional
data and answer
questions, as
well as extended
“an offer to
conduct onsite
testing to
verify the
safety of this
technology and
the added
benefits.”
Megan McMillen, vice
president of the
Newark Teachers
Association and
a special
education
preschool
teacher, said it
was
disheartening to
know the
cash-strapped
district in the
Bay Area spent
so much on the
devices instead
of other safety
measures or
services to
mitigate
learning loss
after the
chaotic pandemic
year.
“For such a big chunk of
that [money]
going to
something
potentially
ineffective ...
is really
frustrating,”
she said.
History of Ionizer Law Suits and
Bankruptcies
Madison Pauly of Mother Jones
has compiled a
comprehensive
history of
ionizer lawsuits
and bankruptcies
over the years
with Sharper
Image being one
of the most
publicized.
The new universe
of air scrubbers
goes by a lot of
names—bipolar
ionization,
photocatalytic
oxidation,
“organic
air”—but some
experts refer to
them as
“additive”
purifiers. They
all share the
same underlying
principle:
Rather than
simply
subtracting
matter from the
air using a
filter, they add molecules
to create
chemical
reactions that,
at least in
theory,
eliminate
airborne
contaminants.
Those molecules
supposedly float
out into a room
and destroy
viruses, break
down harmful
gases, or make
particles stick
together,
causing them to
get trapped in
filters or
settle on
surfaces, where
they can’t be
inhaled. Some
manufacturers
emphasize that
their process
mimics the
atmospheric
activity found
near crashing
waves,
mountaintops,
and waterfalls.
The reality is
far less rosy.
In interviews
with Mother
Jones,
nearly a dozen
chemists,
engineers, and
indoor
air-quality
experts laid out
a range of
possible
dangers. First
there’s the
matter of the
molecules that
additive
purifiers
release into
air, which can
include ozone or
free radicals. Ozone, a highly reactive form of oxygen, has long
been known to damage
lungs and worsen
chronic
respiratory
diseases. While
some purifiers
are certified to produce undetectable levels of
ozone, others produce
much more. And little
oversight exists
to keep levels
in check. Free
radicals,
meanwhile, have
an odd number of
electrons, which
makes them
unstable and
greedy. When
they meet other
molecules, they
grab their
electrons,
transforming
into something
new. While
purifiers rely
on those
transformations
to destroy
unwanted gases, some research suggests free radicals may damage lung tissue
when inhaled.
Experts also
worry the
machines run the risk of creating harmful byproducts like formaldehyde, a probable
carcinogen at high
concentrations.
A federal
class-action
lawsuit filed
in May against
one of Plasma
Air’s
competitors, Global Plasma Solutions (GPS), alleges that bipolar ionizers
“make the air
worse for
people” by
causing toxic
chemicals to
form. In two recent studies conducted in China, researchers found
that ionizing
air purifiers
tested in
schools reduced
particulate
matter but also
appeared to
cause health
problems.
“Indoor air is a
complex chemical
soup,” explains Jeff
Siegel, a University
of Toronto civil
engineering
professor who
has spent
decades
researching air
cleaners. “If
you’re operating
one of these
devices, the
most charitable
thing I can say
is you are doing
an uncontrolled
experiment on
the air in your
building,”
Siegel says. “In
some
environments,
this could be
really
hazardous.”
In response to
questions about
scientists’
critiques,
Plasma Air and
GPS pointed to industry certifications saying their products emit negligible
or no ozone.
They also note test
results from
commercial labs
that concluded
their machines
do not form
chemical
byproducts.
(Four other
companies did
not respond to
requests for
comment or
declined to
answer questions
about the
scientists’
concerns.) GPS
has filed defamation lawsuits against two of its critics, indoor air
engineering
consultants who
said the
company’s
purifiers are
unproven and
potentially
harmful, and
that its product
testing was
faulty.
Manufacturers
often pay
commercial labs
to test their
products,
resulting in
impressive-sounding
claims like a 99
percent
reduction in
airborne
coronavirus.
Meanwhile,
peer-reviewed
research does
not show
additive air
purifiers
consistently
working under
real-world
conditions
without forming
potentially
harmful
byproducts,
according to six
academic experts
I spoke with and
a review of
scientific
articles
provided by
manufacturers. And recent research indicates that some machines on the
market may be
far less
effective than
manufacturers
claim.
Scientists have
only begun to
study the
chemical
mechanisms by
which the
purifiers
actually work
indoors, says Timothy Bertram, a University of Wisconsin chemist
leading a study
of bipolar
ionizers.
Without that
understanding,
it’s hard to
evaluate what,
if anything,
additive
purifiers do
when they’re
installed inside
an air vent or
plugged in at
the back of a
classroom. So
far, Bertram’s
study has found
no evidence of
the ionizers
reducing
aerosols.
“The theory
behind these
devices is
interesting,”
says Delphine
Farmer, an
atmospheric
chemist at
Colorado State
University.
“It’s just it
hasn’t been
demonstrated to
work in
real-world
environments.”
At best, some
experts say,
additive
purifiers are
unnecessary,
especially
considering the
range of proven
alternatives
like filters and
increasing the
flow of air
coming in from
outside. At
worst, buyers
hoping to fight
COVID could be
lulled into a
false sense of
security while
adding harmful
chemicals to the
air. Yet over
the last year,
additive air
cleaners have
been installed
in prisons, cruise
ships,
and meatpacking
plants—all
places where the
coronavirus is
known to spread
rapidly. They
are particularly
attractive to
schools, where
administrators
are under
enormous
pressure to
resume
in-person
learning by the
next school
year. Those
schools are also
loaded with
pandemic
stimulus cash—$13
billion from 2020’s
CARES Act, and
an additional $130
billion in President
Joe Biden’s
American Rescue
Plan. The
familiar faces
delivering the
sell don’t
hurt: Kris
Kobach, the former
Kansas secretary
of state, was
peddling an
additive air
cleaner to his
state
legislature last
fall.
Former CDC
Director Robert
Redfield recently
joined
manufacturer Big Ass Fans, which is selling fans with an
additive
purifier on the
tip of each
blade. In
March, ActivePure Technologies, a Texas-based
additive
purifier company
with a
multilevel
marketing arm,
announced it was
hiring a new
chief medical
and science
adviser: Dr.
Deborah Birx, Donald
Trump’s former
coronavirus
response
coordinator.
And so, across
the country,
school districts
drawn in by
promising-sounding
manufacturer
data and slick
marketing are
now spending
anywhere from
several thousand
dollars to a few
million to
install additive
air purifiers.
GPS says its
devices are
employed by
1,300 K–12
schools and on
400 US college
campuses. Both
Plasma Air and
ActivePure say
hundreds of
schools use
their devices.
According to a
tally maintained
by Marwa Zaatari,
an indoor air
engineering
consultant,
public and
private schools
in at least 41
states have
installed air
cleaners she’s
concerned about.
Marietta,
Georgia, put
ionizers
on school buses.
The school
district in
Sacramento,
California,
spent more
than $6
million last
year to purchase
and install
additive
purifiers. “When
the CARES Act
dollars came
through in late
August, we saw
it as a perfect
opportunity to
pursue
ionization,”
Greg Cole, a top
administrator
for
Anoka-Hennepin
Schools, one of
Minnesota’s
largest
districts, says
in
a video posted
to the
district’s
YouTube channel.
The district
spent more than
$1.4 million on
additive
purifiers.
In January, the
epidemic task
force at ASHRAE,
the professional
organization
that sets
standards for
HVAC, issued
a recommendation that
buildings should
“only use air
cleaners for
which evidence
of effectiveness
and safety is
clear.” The
CDC urges
consumers to “do
their homework”
on bipolar
ionization: “In
the absence of
an established
body of evidence
reflecting
proven efficacy
under as-used
conditions, the
technology is
still considered
by many to be an
‘emerging
technology.’”
But for many
schools,
installing
high-tech air
cleaners to
fight an
airborne virus
still seems like
the aggressive
countermeasures
that parents and
staff clamor
for. Richard
Corsi, dean of
the engineering
and computer
science college
at Portland
State University
and an advocate
for
better-ventilated
schools, says
he’s fielded
many queries
from districts
about bipolar
ionizers and
similar
purifiers. “I
just keep
telling school
district
officials,
‘Stick to proven
technologies,’”
Corsi says.
“‘Why would you
want to risk
this?’”
Additive air
purifiers have
been trendy
before. In the
early 2000s, the
Sharper
Image—the
mall-based
purveyor of
shiny
gadgets—relied
on its Ionic
Breeze purifier
for more than a
third of its
sales.
The device was
supposed to
generate ions
that made
contaminants
stick to
oppositely
charged
collection
plates inside
the device. No
fan, no noise,
just cleaner
air. Then Consumer
Reports published
a series of
articles beginning
in 2002 finding
that Ionic
Breeze
produced “almost
no measurable
reduction in
airborne
particles” but
released potentially
dangerous levels
of ozone as an
unintentional
byproduct.
The findings
spelled disaster
for the Sharper
Image. Ozone in
the upper
atmosphere
shields humans
from ultraviolet
rays, but
it’s toxic when
inhaled,
damaging lung
tissue and
aggravating
asthma. The
Sharper Image
sued Consumer
Reports for
product
disparagement
and lost. Then
the class
actions started.
Multiple
lawsuits, from
Ionic Breeze
owners in
California,
Florida, and
Maryland,
claimed that the
purifiers failed
to work as
advertised and
exposed them to
dangerous ozone
levels.
After years of
litigation, the
company was
ready to settle,
proposing $19
coupons for
anyone who owned
an Ionic Breeze.
But when the
judge rejected
the offer, the
Sharper
Image’s stock
plummeted.
Bankruptcy
followed, and
the
company cited
the lawsuits as
a cause. The
plaintiffs were
allotted only a
small
settlement, but
the controversy
may have helped
pass the
country’s first
and only
prohibition on
additive air
purifiers: In
2008,
California’s Air
Resources
Board banned air
cleaners that
emit more than a
moderate amount
of ozone.
As public
knowledge about
the dangers of
indoor ozone
grew, engineers
set about
redesigning
ionizers, trying
to avoid
releasing
significant
levels of the
gas. Today,
manufacturers
like Plasma
Air and GPS boast
that their
devices produce
tiny levels of
ozone, if any at
all. Still,
small increases
in ozone
concentrations
are associated
with increased
risk of death
from respiratory
causes,
according to
a study published
in the New
England Journal
of Medicine,
which compared
23 years of
ozone data in 96
US cities with
health outcomes
for more than
400,000
patients.
Purifiers never
went away—ask
anyone who’s
lived through
the California
wildfires—but
the past year
has brought them
back into the
national
spotlight. In a
video posted to ActivePure’s website, Birx
explained her
decision to join
the company as a
part-time
consultant:
“When I was
traveling the
country, I was
able to talk to
people and
understand what
their needs
really were, how
people really
want to feel
safe again
indoors,” she
said. “I was
really looking
for technology
that was
science- and
data-driven,
really working
to address that
specific issue,
to make indoor
spaces safe for
individuals.
ActivePure is
one of those
companies that
has, really,
that type of
technology.” In
a press
release, CEO Joe Urso
said Birx’s
presence would
help bring
ActivePure
devices to “all
indoor spaces.”
“God gave humans these air purifiers, and you
should not take
away that gift.”
Of course, Birx
isn’t exactly
regarded as a
stalwart
defender of
science. As
Trump’s
coronavirus
response
coordinator, she
became best
known for sitting by uncomfortably as her boss wondered aloud about
injecting bleach
to treat COVID.
Since Biden took
office, Birx has
been doing a series of TV
hits to explain what happened, recounting
how Trump chewed
her out for issuing a
dire warning
about the
coronavirus.
So working for a
company that is
also in need of
image
rehabilitation
is an
interesting
choice.
ActivePure is
descended from
Alpine Air
Products, Inc.,
a multilevel
marketing
company founded
in 1986 to sell
free-standing
air purifiers
that
intentionally
generated ozone
to clean the
air. In 1990,
the state of
Minnesota, where
Alpine was
based, filed a
consumer fraud
and antitrust
lawsuit against
the company,
alleging it
hadn’t warned
buyers that the
amount of ozone
emitted could be
harmful. A trial
court agreed, and Alpine
had to pay
consumers
damages and
restitution.
The company
survived, and in
1994 it made $7
million in
sales. But its
legal problems
didn’t go away.
In 1995, the
Federal Trade
Commission told
Alpine to stop making
“unsubstantiated”
claims about its
purifiers’
ability to
remove
pollutants and
prevent or
relieve
allergies,
asthma, and
colds. About
three years
later, after the
company didn’t
heed its
warning, the FTC
filed suit. A
jury found
Alpine lacked “competent and reliable scientific
evidence” to
back up many
claims about its
product’s
effectiveness.
Then, in 2000,
at the height of
the company’s
troubles, Mike
Jackson,
Alpine’s vice
president of
marketing—the
very division
responsible for
its bogus
claims—formed
a new
corporation:
EcoQuest
International.
EcoQuest
promptly
acquired the
marketing rights
to sell Alpine
products, along
with its entire
network
marketing
operation.
With the
bombastic
Jackson as
president,
EcoQuest grew
from a small
multilevel
marketing firm
to a powerhouse.
In radio ads,
Pat Boone sang
the praises of
its purifiers,
which the
company claimed
produced less
ozone than older
versions.
Thousands of
dealers flocked
to the EcoQuest
Success
Institute in
Greeneville,
Tennessee, for
sales training
programs steeped
in religious
language. Many
of its most
successful
salespeople were
“pastors and
priests and
preachers and
evangelists,”
Jackson told a Knoxville
News Sentinel reporter. (In
this sense, Birx,
an evangelical,
fits right in.)
“I don’t believe
that the
non-Christian
crowd should
control all the
money and should
control all the
airways and
control the
radio waves and
control all the
newspapers,”
Jackson said.
(When California
debated its air
purifier
regulation, an
EcoQuest dealer
wept during a
public hearing
as she described
how the
company’s
product had
improved her
mother’s
breathing. “God
gave humans
these air
purifiers, and
you should not
take away that
gift,” she pleaded.)
By 2004,
EcoQuest’s
cumulative air
purifier sales
had reportedly
reached $1
billion. That summer,
the company
acquired a
division of
another firm
that had a
pending patent
on a related
process called
photocatalytic
oxidation, which
involves shining
ultraviolet
light onto a
surface coated
with a catalyst.
When working as
intended, that
interaction
creates charged
clusters of
oxygen and
hydrogen in the
air, as well as
free radicals,
that break down
unwanted gases
into water and
carbon dioxide.
The way the
company tells
the story, the technique
drew on NASA
research looking
for ways to
reduce the
buildup of
ethylene gas
around plants
inside a
spacecraft’s
sealed
environment.
EcoQuest dubbed
the technology
ActivePure and
got to work
selling it.
At least some of
the new
purifiers still
released ozone. But Jackson
assured the Knoxville
News Sentinel that
Alpine’s legal
troubles were a
thing of the
past: “All that
stuff was the
maturing, the
growing of Mike
Jackson as a
businessman,” he
said. “I learned
that you don’t
make claims
unless you have
scientific
substantiation…It
probably was one
of the best
schools I could
have gone to in
learning what
not to do with
my company.”
But in 2009,
when sales
plummeted amid
the recession,
EcoQuest went
bankrupt.
Jackson sold
off EcoQuest to
Urso, CEO of a family of companies with names like Allergy Buyers Club—and descended from Electrolux, the
door-to-door
sales
heavyweight—that
used direct
sales to hawk
anti-allergy
bedding,
aromatherapy
oils, and vacuum
cleaners.
(According to a press
release, the company
signed a deal in
2018 to
manufacture
purifiers under
the brand name
the Sharper
Image, though
Urso says this
has not
happened.)
The easiest way
to increase the
flow of clean
air at home is
to open a
window. But
that’s not
always possible
during extreme
weather or when
outdoor
pollution is
high. If you’re
considering air
purifiers, here
are the key
things you
should keep in
mind:
Ionizers are
supposed to
break down
unwanted
chemicals. But
the CDC says
these and other
additive
purifiers are an
“emerging
technology” that
lacks “an
established body
of peer-reviewed
evidence showing
proven efficacy
and safety under
as-used
conditions.” If
you’re set on
buying one, the
EPA recommends
one that meets
UL 2998 standard
certification,
indicating it
produces zero or
undetectable
levels of ozone.
If you already
own an ionizing
purifier without
this
certification,
you might
consider turning
off that
function.
Jackson, for his
part, is now a
leader in
ActivePure’s multilevel
marketing arm,
which is still
going strong. In
a June
2020 recruitment
webinar titled
“How You Earn
$100,000 Killing
Viruses, Mold,
and Mildew!”
Jackson
suggested that
sellers can pay
off their
mortgage after
six months of
hawking air
purifiers. (Urso
says Jackson is
an independent
distributor
whose views do
not represent
the company.)
Urso’s companies
make the
jaw-dropping
claim that their
technology can
kill more than
99 percent of
airborne
coronavirus in
three minutes.
The powerful
oxidants
produced by the
purifiers “seek
and destroy DNA
and RNA
viruses,”
according to
some of the
company’s marketing
language. Sales
have quadrupled
over the last
year, a press
release boasts;
in
one promotional
video, Jackson
claims they
“sold out”
25,000 systems
in a single week
in 2020. The
ActivePure
website now
lists 39 schools
and child care
centers it says
use its
purifiers;
“hundreds more,”
it claims,
“trust” its
technology.
As scientists
have started
to raise alarms,
some
institutions
have reversed
course on
additive air
purifiers. In
February, the
Sacramento
school district
pulled
photocatalytic
oxidation
machines from
school buildings
after a Sacramento
Bee investigation led
to outcry from
the teachers
union. Public
schools in
Montclair, New
Jersey, turned
off their GPS
ionizers after
parent
objections. And
last summer,
when a Phoenix
megachurch
hosting a Trump
rally announced
it had installed
purifiers that
could supposedly
kill “99 percent
of COVID within
10 minutes,”
backlash from
experts led the
state attorney
general to
issue warning
letters to both
the church and
the company,
Clean Air EXP.
Each rolled back
its claims.
(Clean Air EXP
rebranded four
months later. It
now sells under
the name PuriFi
Labs.)
Yet no US
governmental
body has
attempted to
regulate the
indoor air
cleaner industry
systematically.
Products that
can’t pass
California’s
ozone test are
sold freely in
other states;
one ActivePure website,
for example,
serves different
homepages to
customers
outside the
state. The FTC
has
sent warning letters to a handful of air purifier companies
making
COVID-related
claims but has
not publicly
announced any
follow-up
action,
according to a
spokesperson.
And while the
FDA regulates
medical devices,
it’s up to
companies to
decide whether
to seek that
certification.
In an email to Mother
Jones, an
EPA spokesperson
said it keeps an
eye on false and
misleading
claims from air
purifier
manufacturers
but that
companies aren’t
required to
submit safety or
efficacy data to
the agency. “EPA
is concerned
about the
potential for
schools to be
victimized,” the
spokesperson
said. But
enforcement, for
now, is case by
case.
“These products
just fall in
that gray zone
where no
government
authority is
really ready to
provide
oversight or
regulation for
them,” Farmer
says. “It’s
probably not
going to happen
until someone
gets really
badly hurt.”
All the
scientists
Madison spoke
with say that
the goal should
be more
peer-reviewed
research on what
exactly additive
cleaners are
doing. In the
meantime, indoor
air-quality
experts are
urging schools
to follow the
precautionary
principle: “If
you don’t
understand it,
do not use it,”
Zaatari says.
She’s working on
an ASHRAE
standard for
additive
air-cleaner
testing
and raising
money for more
research. A
handful of
scientists
recently
released an
online tool to
help convert
additive
purifier
manufacturer
data into more
informative
metrics. Corsi,
Stephens, and
others have all
given webinars
cautioning
schools to stick
to proven
methods like
increasing the
flow of outdoor
air and
upgrading
filters. Farmer,
in conversations
with school
administrators,
has recommended
they simply
duct-tape HEPA
filters to box
fans: $50
apiece, no risk
of byproducts.
And in April, a
dozen indoor
air-quality
scientists and
engineers
co-signed
an open
letter to
schools written
by Zaatari and
another
consultant.
“Many districts,
constrained by
varying degrees
of limited
budgets,
deferred
maintenance, and
pressure to get
kids back in
school, have
already
implemented
electronic air
cleaning
devices, relying
on incomplete
data and
exaggerated
claims to make a
well-intended,
but incorrect
decision,” they
wrote. “Despite
the resources
invested, we
recommend that
these districts
strongly
consider turning
off or disabling
these electronic
air cleaners to
prevent
unintended harm
to building
occupants.”
At least one
purifier company
is firing back
at its critics.
This spring, GPS
filed lawsuits
accusing Zaatari
and Offermann of
defamation and
product
disparagement.
Offermann, who
spent decades
testing additive
air purifiers
for the Lawrence
Berkeley
National
Laboratory, had
self-published a
paper titled
“Beware: The
COVID-19 Snake
Oil Salesmen Are
Here,” which GPS
claims unfairly
maligned its
test data,
according
to court papers.
In a separate
complaint, GPS
accused Zaatari
of mounting “a
systematic
campaign
designed to
smear GPS” on
Twitter, in news
articles, and
during webinars
that portrayed
ionizers as
potentially
dangerous—including
likening them to
cigarettes.
“They’re
basically suing
to try to
silence me,”
Zaatari told
Madision in
April. “I’m not
going to stop.”
|